(cont. from § 12) Better conditions for safety and study in school (cont. UbU22)

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! Forssell spoke in his speech about that social interaction should be practiced in school. Then I wonder a bit cautiously if it is in a dunghill that it should be done. From the government parties, the school debate has in recent times been characterized very much by dunghills, school uniforms, shame corners, and punishment cleaning. And from the Government Offices, one hears it echo: "Quiet in the class!"

The rhetoric is cheap, actually completely free, and that is probably also the reason why it is so popular. Because compared to ensuring that students get the support they need, it is much cheaper to shift the responsibility for the government's failures onto the individual.

We can, Madam Speaker, look a little at what has actually happened during this parliamentary term. Sveriges Lärare testifies to the worst cuts in Swedish schools in 30 years. All over Sweden, large numbers of teachers have been laid off. Principals warn in the wake of the savings that students risk not receiving the support they are entitled to. The proportion of students with a grade of F in grade 9 has increased during the parliamentary term from 24 to 28 percent. This should call for a sense of crisis.

Now, the Tidö parties are presenting a proposition concerning increasing safety and study environment in schools. Of course, we want the very best school environment and study environment in Swedish schools, but I want to ask Forssell how he views the fact that there have been significant cuts in schools and whether that increases or decreases safety and study environment in schools.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, one must surely sometimes shout "Quiet in the classroom!" in a classroom. I would have wished that it did not go that far.

It is a fact. Approximately 100,000 children are born in Sweden every year. In every population of 100,000, there will be a number of individuals who are unable to manage the school environment and behave properly. They may have parents who have not set boundaries or who have not given them the social training needed to be able to manage their schooling and to let other students in the classroom manage their schooling. In that case, tools may be needed so that these individuals do not otherwise disturb the teaching – both for their own sake, so that they can receive the required support, and for the sake of the other students.

I am a parent myself. If there is a student in a classroom where my daughter sits who disturbs so much and behaves in such a way that expulsion from the classroom is relevant, I think it is obvious that this should happen. I think that otherwise it causes too much harm to the other children in the classroom. I do not think it is anything strange, and I do not think those who are watching this debate either think it is strange.

This government has made very large investments in schools. I wish we had done even more. Vänsterpartiet will certainly have to learn this if they get to sit in government together with Centerpartiet in the future. We fight all the time over money here and there between our different ministerial posts. I want to give even more money to schools.

But we must remember that this government provides a lot of money to the school. It is just that the school is municipalized. That means that there are a lot of municipalities around the country that do not spend the money they should spend on the school. And when it comes to the cuts being made, the municipalities also have a very large responsibility.

I do not think that municipalities or private companies should make large profits. I think that the money should go to the students in the school.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! What I said in my previous reply was not that it is inappropriate for a teacher to say "Quiet in the class!". But I am very questioning as to whether it really helps to say it from the Government Offices. There, I imagine that one has completely different tools for steering the school than to be inside and meddling with dummy heads, school uniforms, shame corners, and punishment rooms, as if that is what will make Swedish schools better.

What we know is that there have been significant cuts in Swedish schools, regardless of what Forssell says. What we know is that this government has underfunded Swedish municipalities and regions by 30 billion compared to before it took office. It is clear that this is noticeable in the classroom. It is noticeable in the schools that have had to lay off teachers and student assistants and where there are more students in each classroom so that the finances will balance. Forssell can blame as much as he wants on the fact that the school is municipally governed.

I think it would be appropriate if the government took responsibility for the fact that what is actually prioritized are its own tax cuts instead of ensuring that the municipalities can invest in healthcare and schools. That is how this government prioritizes. In the midst of the economic crisis, they are lowering taxes for the very richest while those who take the hit are the students in the classroom. We can see how the number of students with F is increasing.

At the same time, one wants to say now that it is the individual student who should take responsibility for "behaving," instead of giving the students the prerequisites to do the right thing. That is done by ensuring that schools can hire good teachers and have smaller classes, and that there are economic resources to take care of those who need support.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! It is clear that the individual always has a responsibility for their actions. Then, the adult world around them, depending on how old one is, for example, also has varying degrees of responsibility. In these cases, the adult world has often failed to step forward. It can be parents, teachers, school leaders, or other adults around the students who cause trouble and behave in a way that disrupts teaching who have failed to step forward and take responsibility. Setting boundaries and making demands is caring. It is not doing these children harm. On the contrary, they need the boundary-setting adults around them. I think it is good that teachers and schools all over this country receive the powers and the political support required to be able to do this, regardless of where in the country the school is located.

The Left Party wants, Madam Speaker, just like the Liberals to nationalize the school, and I am glad about that. We want to do it in slightly different ways, but one reason why both our parties want to do it is, I believe, precisely that we do not think the municipalities are good enough at allocating the resources required for the school. Even the Left Party usually in all other cases thinks that the municipalities allocate too little money to the school, and I am glad about that.

I do not think that private owners of schools that do not deliver sufficient quality should be able to extract large profits. I do not think that municipalities that do not deliver sufficient quality should be able to make a profit. A majority of Sweden's municipalities are in the black. Those are funds that could instead have been spent on the school.

I wish that Vänsterpartiet dared to take a fight, not only against a government they have never sat in but also against municipalities around the country where they themselves bear responsibility. Vänsterpartiet does not do that. Instead, Vänsterpartiet wants to point at someone else and speak with ordinary Marxist rhetoric. But the reality is that the municipalities need to invest more in Swedish schools.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Joar Forssell said in his speech that we cannot leave generation after generation to the mercy of the waves. Sweden's teachers, there is what the government thinks of your work: You leave generation after generation to the mercy of the waves!

Now, there are some things that can be done if one really wants security and focus in school. Joar Forssell mentioned, not to say boasted, that one is finally taking action on this with the mobiles. Yes, 80 percent of Swedish primary schools are mobile-free. No one thinks it is any strange thing that one does not have one's private mobiles during lessons. That Joar Forssell also said, so everyone surely agrees that it is not any strange thing.

But something one knows is that it's about being out and doing fun things during the break. Something that is more important than there not being mobiles is that one has active break supervisors and that one has activities so that there are fun things to do. It also strengthens the physical activity at a school.

It was, therefore, mostly statements. The government is beating the big drum when it comes to the new legislation, but it will not make that much of a difference.

But this with the rules of order, I find that interesting. I want to ask a question about that. Schools do have rules of order. The point is that they are designed together, both the rules and the consequences that the rules are to have. We know that when there is good student influence at a school, one has a calmer environment, and the rules are followed better.

But the point of this legislation is that the principal is responsible for establishing the school rules and informing the students about them. It is therefore no longer to be something that one designs together. What is the point of that, Joar Forssell?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I thought the Green Party liked wind and waves. That is, in any case, also in the energy policy. But I believe those who are listening to this debate think that it is a bit of a low level of argumentation. Camilla Hansén makes it sound as if I had said that the teachers in Sweden are doing a bad job. I have not said that. So, I suppose no one who has listened to this debate has perceived it that way either.

However, neither the Liberals nor the Green Party, as far as I know, are anarchists. We believe that there should be rules and laws. We believe it is reasonable for the state to set frameworks for how different activities should function. That does not mean that we think that police officers, nurses, doctors, or teachers are doing a bad job – or whoever it may be who works for the public sector. But laws and rules are needed all over the country for all possible industries and all possible workplaces. I think the Green Party probably agrees with that – I was about to say the Left Party; it is easy to mix them up.

The Liberals have nothing against break supervisors. It sounds like a rather non-ideological issue. On the other hand, I believe that everyone who has children of their own can state that if the children watch a movie or sit and fiddle with their phones, they become slightly less physically and socially active than otherwise. I believe that the break supervisors' work becomes quite a bit simpler if they do not have to compete with these machines that are created to cling to our senses and suck us into the digital.

I think that rules of order are something that should apply to everyone. I do not think they should differ much between different schools, between different parts of the country, and so on.

I think we should have student influence, but I do not think the student influence should apply to all parts of the school's activities. These are not things that should be negotiable.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is clear that it says something about how one views the professionals in the school when one says that the principal is unable to manage the mandate to make decisions about mobile phones at their school. We elevate it to law instead. We will simply have to wait and see how successful it becomes.

My question was, after all, what the point was of removing student influence. No one questions that there should be rules in a school, which the member spoke about for a very long time. But the point of having an active student influence – for example, when designing the rules for the everyday life that teachers and students are in – is that it works better and that you get a better school environment.

Now the government chooses to do something that research shows works worse. It rhymes very strangely with the desire for there to be order and tidiness. If you want order and tidiness, you choose that which there is scientific support for. I really do not understand the answer to this question.

The same also applies to the measures that can be taken as a teacher. It can be about expulsion from the classroom or about detention. These are still quite clear measures, part of the exercise of authority, but still, the government does not think that one needs to have any documentation of it anymore in any way. It has been pointed out, among other things by the Swedish student unions, that this needs to exist. One also needs to be able to see how teachers use the tools.

When I argue against this, I do not mean that it should be about some kind of benevolence or that one should be a bit lax, but it is about doing things that actually work.

I ask again: Why does one not want to work with student influence, which actually works, but chooses instead top-down management?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! This is becoming a bit strange. It is clear that basic rules of order that are to apply to an entire school become school rules. I do not think that should be anything that is negotiable.

I do not think one should be able to say: At our school, we do not think we should behave or that we should have peace and quiet and order. At our school, we do not think it is important to get rid of the noise. It is very strange.

I would like to see the research that says a rowdy classroom is no worse for learning than a classroom with peace and quiet. There is no such research. Everyone understands that it is bad for teaching if it is rowdy and disorderly, if it is not peace and quiet and if it is not order and tidiness. Everyone understands that.

It is completely unreasonable, Madam Speaker, that the Green Party continues to propagate the "flumskola" (vague school), which has failed and left people at the mercy of the waves. The school has not been able to compensate for even the background. It has resulted in students with a tougher and less study-oriented background getting worse conditions in school. That "flumskola" is what the Green Party stands for and defends here. I do not understand that one continues to do this.

When it comes to the documentation, Miljöpartiet also contradicts themselves. What we are saying is not that one should not have any documentation at all. What we are saying is that teachers and school leaders should ensure that one has the – call it documentation or information – required to follow up on these students according to what the law prescribes. That does not mean that we need to have documentation in the same way everywhere and in an administratively burdensome way. There, Miljöpartiet suddenly does not think it should be up to the teachers and principals to decide this. It just doesn't add up!

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet stands for a school of vagueness across the country and for a vague policy here in the Swedish Riksdag that does not add up.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Initially, I move for approval of reservation 8.

I want to start with what should be obvious. Every student should go to school without worry. Every child should be met by adults who see, act, and take responsibility. Every classroom should be a place where teaching can begin on time, where the teacher is allowed to teach, and where the students are given the peace to study. This is the Social Democrats' starting point in this debate.

Safety and study environment are not a side issue in school policy. It is a basic prerequisite for knowledge, equality, and faith in the future.

The student who every day goes to a classroom characterized by disruption, harassment, or unrest does not get the same chance as the student who is met with calm, structure, and clear adults. The teacher who time and again is forced to interrupt their teaching to handle disruptions is not given reasonable conditions to do their work. Therefore, the school needs clear rules, strong adult responsibility, and real opportunities to act.

Teachers and principals must not be left alone in difficult situations. There must be tools to handle students who seriously disrupt teaching and who pose a risk to the safety of other students. But, Madam Speaker, if we are serious about safety and study, we must also talk about what actually changes everyday life in the classroom. Order, in fact, is not built only with paragraphs. It is built with adult presence. It is built with sufficient resources. It is built with special pedagogical support, reasonable class sizes, and a leadership where principals and teachers have the conditions to be present in the school's everyday life. It is not built by profits leaking out of Swedish schools. In that regard, this government has not delivered during this mandate period. Therefore, we need a change of government this autumn.

Madam Speaker! Several parts of the proposal that we are debating today are important. This concerns, for example, clarifying the responsibility of the headmaster and the principal. That the school should, as a general rule, be mobile-free is also reasonable. Mobile phones should not govern the school day, disturb the teaching, or hinder the social community. There are, therefore, positive parts in this committee report. But the bill also has clear shortcomings.

A central deficiency in the report concerns emergency schools. It is also there that there is an important political dividing line in the debate. Emergency schools can play an important role. If properly designed, the schools can provide an opportunity to quickly break an unsustainable situation. They can create peace of work for classmates and teachers while students placed there receive more consolidated support, clearer frameworks, and the opportunity to return to education. But for that very reason, emergency schools must be handled with great care.

They must not become a dumping ground for students that the school is unable to handle. This must never become a way to move the problems away from the regular school without taking responsibility for the causes behind the problems. It must never become a reform where students who often have the greatest need for stability, continuity, and professional support end up in an operation where the chain of responsibility is unclear.

Here, we Social Democrats mean that it will be wrong to open up for emergency schools to be operated on a contract basis and privatized. Students who are placed in emergency schools are often in a very vulnerable situation. It can involve students with large support needs, students who have ended up in repeated conflicts, students who are themselves in danger, or students whose schooling has not functioned for a long period. In those cases, society needs to take a clear responsibility. In those cases, the head of the school, the principal, the student health services, and the teaching need to hang together. In that situation, putting the operation out on contract and risking weakening the cohesive responsibility, we see as problematic.

Madam Speaker! It is not the market that should bear the responsibility for the students that the school has the most difficulty reaching. It is the public school system that should do so. The risk with outsourcing solutions is that the responsibility is divided between different actors, that transparency decreases, and that the school's long-term mission is weakened.

We know that safety and focus are not created by moving students between activities. What is decisive is what happens before, during, and after a placement. What support did the student receive before the placement? What instruction does the student receive during the placement? How does the school work with the class that the student leaves? How do you ensure that the return actually works for real? That is where we politicians must focus our efforts.

Emergency schools can be and should be part of a coherent responsibility for the student. We Social Democrats stand behind a school where the adult world acts clearly. Students who threaten, violate, and disrupt teaching shall face consequences. Other students' safety and right to education weigh heavily. But we do not stand behind the principle that the school's most difficult tasks should be privatized away. That is why we Social Democrats say no to the proposal on emergency schools on a contract basis.

Madam Speaker! The second part of this bill, where we have objections, concerns expectation documents. It risks becoming an administrative construction in a school that already has a large documentation burden. Teachers need more time for teaching, relationship-building work, and follow-up on students' needs. They do not need more documents to be established, anchored, and managed without it being clear how they will actually contribute to a better learning environment.

It is not a lack of knowledge that the school expects good behavior that is the main problem. The problem is often that the schools lack time, staff, student health services, special pedagogical support, and resources to be able to meet the students in time. When students do not receive the right support in time, the problems grow. When student health services are too far away, when special education teachers are insufficient, and when classes are too large, the responsibility ultimately falls on the individual teacher in a classroom where the resources do not match the mission. To then add a statement of expectations risks burdening the teacher with additional documentation, and we consider that to be wrong.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats want to take back control of the school. The school's money should go to the students, not into the pockets of shareholders. Teachers should be given better conditions to teach. Principals should be given a mandate but also resources. Students should be met with high expectations but also with the support required to reach them.

It is this way that we create safety and focus for real. All students have the right to a safe school day. All teachers have the right to a working environment where it is possible to teach. All of Sweden has the right to demand a school policy that actually strengthens the classroom, where the school is decided every day.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jörgen Grubb (SD)

Madam Speaker! Better conditions for safety and study in school – that is the report we are talking about and debating today. We stand behind the committee's proposal in this report.

A fundamental requirement for students to learn something in school is that it is calm and safe in the classroom – I believe everyone understands that. In our schools, it is not always so, and far too many students therefore feel insecure. Furthermore, a lot of valuable educational time is lost every day, which could have strengthened and developed many students. In short: It is not acceptable. We must do something about this before it worsens.

In addition to the Swedish school system being criticized for large result discrepancies – extreme differences between well-functioning schools and non-functioning schools – Sweden achieves far too weak results in relation to all the money invested in the school. Furthermore, the Swedish school has poor classroom discipline. Such is the criticism from the OECD, the organization that conducts the PISA surveys for 38 prominent countries.

Independent reviewers are very clear on three points. We get too little bang for the buck. We have poor classroom discipline, and we have large discrepancies between our schools. I believe one should keep this in mind when discussing this report.

Statistics from the OECD show that Sweden is the country in Europe with the worst classroom discipline. Even the head of PISA, Andreas Schleicher, spoke about this in Swedish media a couple of years ago. He was very harsh in his criticism. He was clear that more discipline and commitment were needed in Swedish classrooms.

Madam Speaker! Now it is time for us to do something about this mess – poor classroom discipline. The Sweden Democrats have for several years in this chamber presented proposals to improve in the classrooms. I am therefore extra happy today that we – together with the Tidö Government – have presented our proposals in this committee report.

The proposals aim to be preventive and to ensure that good order can be maintained. The principal's responsibility for the work regarding safety and study environment is clarified in the Education Act, and this includes both the preventive work and the maintenance of order. The principal shall therefore ensure that work is carried out at the school for safety and study environment.

Teachers and other school staff shall be given expanded opportunities to remove disruptive and rowdy students from the classroom. In cases of gross misconduct, immediate removal applies without a prior warning. The school shall also have routines for receiving the students who are removed so that the lesson for the others can continue. Furthermore, the documentation requirement is removed for isolated and minor removals. However, repeated disruptions are, of course, followed up and documented.

Schools shall become mobile-free in the compulsory school forms, as has been discussed earlier in the debate. The principal may, however, decide on exceptions for certain occasions – for certain lessons or something of that sort. The students' mobiles are collected at the beginning of the school day and returned at its end. It is therefore about the entire school day. It has shown itself very clearly that the use of mobiles during the school day takes much focus away from learning. Even bullying takes place via the mobiles, and the social behavior between students deteriorates – it should rather improve.

School rules shall be decided and upheld by the principal and anchored among the students. They shall contain rules of conduct aimed at maintaining safety and study, as well as consequences for violations. It is very clear and nothing strange.

Every school shall produce a document of expectations addressed to both students and parents – the latter must not be forgotten either. It shall contain the school rules and a reminder of the parents' responsibility for good upbringing, as well as clarify the school's expectations for students and guardians. Students should simply arrive at the Swedish school well-behaved. That is where the results are mixed today, I can say. Parents shall be mindful of their children, attend school meetings and so on, and this improves if they receive greater knowledge. That is what we are completely convinced of.

Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, gross offenses were sometimes committed in our schools. This is, of course, very regrettable. We must rectify this, so that the individual student receives support and other students are protected. It is quite natural, at least I think.

Some of the proposals are the following:

The time for the possibility of temporarily placing a student outside their own school is extended to provide greater opportunities to create a long-term solution. The school where the student is temporarily placed can be an emergency school.

The possibilities to exclude a student from school are increased in terms of both duration and number of times. The school shall ensure that the student receives compensatory teaching. It is the principal who has the mandate to decide what type of teaching each student shall receive.

Students may be denied access to the school with regard to the safety of students and staff if there are exceptional reasons. Even here, the principal decides.

Madam Speaker! I am very pleased that we in this committee have arrived at a number of good measures so that our school shall again feel safe and so that students shall be given the opportunity for study. Furthermore, all teachers will get better opportunities to carry out their teaching. I hope that everyone signs on to this.

In my last debate in this chamber, I also want to thank the speakers and all civil servants and members, especially in our fine Education Committee, for a very pleasant time.

(Applause)

In this speech, Robert Stenkvist (SD) concurred.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Since it is Member Grubbs' last debate here in the chamber, we shall have to endure an exchange of remarks in any case.

There are parts of Speaker Grubbs' statement that I naturally agree with. That we are now converting rules of order into school rules and that they shall apply to the entire school unit, I have no problem with. In most schools that I have visited or worked in, there have been no problems with the rules of order not applying to everyone in the school.

I still became a bit curious when the member spoke about the new document that is intended to be established with this report, namely the expectations document. As Member Grubb and the Sweden Democrats describe it, a considerable amount of work will be required to anchor the expectations document with both students and parents. When such a document is developed, it should therefore involve a considerable amount of work for principals, administrative staff, and teachers at the schools for it to become a reality. Then it should be followed up, worked on actively, and so on.

The government often speaks about how teachers' documentation work should be reduced and not increased. We Social Democrats see an imminent risk that there will be more documentation work for the teaching staff if a new document is introduced that does not differ much from the school rules that are to be part of the expectations document. Why do we need two different types of documents when the expectations document is anyway to include what will now be called school rules? Why do we need an additional document that risks increasing the documentation burden?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jörgen Grubb (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is foolish, I think, to criticize us for that we would increase the teachers' workload. I do not believe that anyone wants to do that. If we are to be completely honest – do we think it takes many hours to write an expectations document that is used in the entire school, copied and used again and again? Do we really think that? No, it can take one or two hours for someone who is skilled. One has surely also seen what some other school has written. It is a question of microscopic time.

That is naturally anchored during the first meeting with the parents. That is the case whenever one has a document – it becomes a basis to talk about with the parents. One must know that it is not obvious for all parents how it should be in our school and how one should take care of their children. It is different. I have experienced this very much in my city, Malmö. People come from different cultures and have different views on upbringing and what the school should do with one's children when they are in school. There are certain things that we absolutely would not want to happen with children in school, but which others believe happen with the children.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I did not quite understand how the reasoning about different cultures related to this.

As the member describes it, one shall work actively with the expectations document. That should still reasonably result in a considerable amount of work for the teachers, at least if one is to be able to stand up for the expectations document with soul and heart. As member Grubb describes it, one shall work with it at the beginning of the term. But the report also states that one shall talk and inform about the expectations document repeatedly and regularly. It will also be necessary to carry out revisions of the document – things are discovered over time, it needs to be updated every time the school rules are updated, and so on. To then say that it will not be so burdensome does not quite hold up.

What is the value of the expectations document that MP Grubb is talking about? It does not differ that much from the school rules, which we also set out – there is no reservation regarding school rules from us Social Democrats in this committee report. Do we really need two different documents that are similar to each other in the regulation of Swedish school?

It must be clear which frameworks and rules apply. The needs of the students must be met. There must be clear expectations and requirements for both students and guardians, but also clear political requirements on what the school shall include. Then it is a matter of the taxpayers', students', and parents' requirements on what the school shall contain.

We Social Democrats do not see the utility of an expectations document that lies so close to the school rules. It actually states in the report that the main part of the expectations document shall consist of the school rules, which are also decided by the principal. Is it necessary in this time to have two separate but similar documents for the regulation of the school?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jörgen Grubb (SD)

Madam Speaker! Member Niklas is making a great fuss about it taking a very long time to write a statement of expectations and that an incredible amount of time would need to be spent contacting the parents. I do not know if he envisions that one should contact the parents every week or every month and go through all the details. I do not think that will be the case, and it is definitely not how it is intended in this committee report.

The school rules should, above all, be included in the expectations document. It is not just a matter of the student going to school and knowing their school rules. This is a way to anchor them in the home.

To the major problems we have in our school belongs that people have very different views on how children should be raised.

I mentioned some cryptic cultures. Ten or twelve years ago, I met a woman in Malmö who said: "I have a very hard time with my female friends in my area – I have to tell them that children are not allowed to be hit in Swedish school when they do something stupid and that it is forbidden to hit children in Sweden." I must say I was somewhat shocked. I asked if it really is so, and she said: "Absolutely – that's how it is!" I have taken that with me, and I have heard it even later. Unfortunately, it is the case that some have that perception.

That it is like this in our school is a small piece of the puzzle that we are going to fit in. Parents need to know this, because they do not know it. This is knowledge that makes it better for their own children, for other students, and for the school's staff. And when one still meets parents and talks with them, one has this expectations document as a small basis. Sometimes one does not even need to talk about it, because everything works.

I do not think we should make it so difficult. We shall simply state that there is now a document that we want to ensure that the parents also see.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! All students in Sweden deserve a safe school environment with good study conditions. No student should have to have a lump in their stomach from going to school, and no student should have to come home with a headache after a day at school. Teachers should be able to come home from work and still have energy left to do other things in their free time.

Unfortunately, that is not the case today. Too many students testify to a rowdy school environment where one cannot focus on schoolwork, and teachers testify to a school environment that is exhausting.

Today we are debating the report Better conditions for safety and study in schools. The government misses here the most important factor for increasing safety and study in schools, namely increased resources for the school. Far too many students today do not receive the support they need, the principals are pressured by narrow budget frameworks and the class sizes have increased in Swedish schools – both because we have a school system that rewards large classes and as a result of cuts in welfare.

Increasing the number of teachers, special teachers with several in the school, and reducing class sizes would be the most important measure to increase safety and learning in the school, but it costs, of course. We have seen the government make massive cuts in the school during this mandate period; Sveriges lärare have warned about the worst cuts in the school in 30 years.

In 2024, Karlstad cut 120 teaching positions. Teachers there say it feels like they are trying to cram more into the schedule and that the support around them has disappeared. More work is placed on the teachers, and schedules are maxed out and full classes are created. Teachers in aesthetic subjects have had to go from teaching 15 students to teaching 30.

On Gotland, teachers who leave due to retirement are not being replaced, and the availability of special educators and special teachers is decreasing. The consequence is that the workload increases for the staff who remain and that there will be less support for the students.

In Eskilstuna, 72 primary school teachers have been laid off, and in Skellefteå, 100 positions have disappeared. The list of how it looks in the municipalities can be made much longer.

Even though Swedish municipalities have recovered somewhat after the worst economic crisis, it is not the case that the staffing levels are back at the same level as before. The government tries to assert that the municipalities are now running a surplus and can thus solve this. The problem is only that they have starved the municipalities during this mandate period. They have actively chosen to spend money that should have gone to children's education on lowering taxes for the very richest. Then they try to dodge the issue by saying that the municipalities' finances are now better.

The most important measure would therefore be to ensure that schools can hire more teachers and that class sizes are reduced.

Several of the government proposals that we are discussing here today risk hitting hard against students with NPF. Not all students have the same ability to sit still and be quiet in a classroom. In the same way that a blind person cannot start to see just because you tell them to look, not all students have the ability to sit still in their chairs, regardless of how many reprimands they receive.

With the government's proposal, it will become easier to expel a student who disrupts the classroom. I agree that in some cases it can be a justified measure, but the government also wants to remove the documentation requirement for this. From Vänsterpartiet, we believe that this is completely wrong and that the documentation requirement should remain. Removing the documentation requirement risks leading to a situation where problems and needs surrounding individual students are not captured, and the school needs to take responsibility for providing support to the students who need it.

Numerous expulsions from the classroom without the school establishing a plan for how this should be avoided in the future risk having negative consequences for the students' legal certainty and opportunity to receive support. It is the principal's responsibility to establish a plan for how a student should receive the correct support, and removing the documentation requirement when the classroom environment does not work for a student risks making it more difficult for a principal to take that responsibility.

We in Vänsterpartiet are also skeptical about how this measure, that is, increased opportunities for expulsion from the classroom, will play out in practice. Students shall thus be able to be expelled from the classroom – but to where?

At most of the schools I have visited, a clear pattern emerges: support staff in schools are not present in the same way as before. Student health services are on site when the moon is full, and the caretaker must be ordered there through an order form reached via an ordering system that crashes. Teaching assistants have been laid off when the municipality has been forced to save, and special education teachers are in short supply.

Who is in the corridor and catches the students who are expelled from the classroom? How shall it be ensured that this does not lead to it becoming rowdy in the corridors instead of rowdy in the classroom? Furthermore, it was a common sight when I myself was in junior high school. I remember Emil at my junior high school. He had to wander around in the corridors for a while from time to time when he was kicked out from lesson after lesson. Today, he would probably have had an ADHD diagnosis.

The government lacks answers on what should happen with the student upon expulsion from the classroom, and we are critical that the government does not account in the bill for how it will work in practice as well as what it will cost. Therefore, we want the government to investigate what is required to ensure that students who are expelled from the classroom are received in a reasonable manner, as well as ensure that the schools have the resources required to support and take care of the students who are expelled from the classroom.

Students shall now not be included in the development of school rules but only be informed when they are already finished. At the same time, it is desired that the consequences of breaking the rules should become clearer. I mean that one increases the possibility of achieving clear compliance with the rules, as well as legitimacy in and maintenance of them, by having the students participate in developing them.

This is not the only area where the government is weakening students' right to influence. At the same time, there is strong support in research that student influence is a success factor in Swedish schools. It is something that the government completely seems to want to abolish. We agree with several of the referral bodies, which argue that students need to be involved in the development of school rules.

I am also questioning why it is so important for the Tidö parties to scrap student influence despite it having strong research support. Is it because, as Malmqvist said in a podcast, a removal of student influence is required if one is to be able to introduce no-excuses schools in Sweden?

Madam Speaker! The Tidö parties say they want to reduce administration, but with the other hand, they are increasing it. Expectation documents are to be introduced in schools, which risks leading to increased administration and becoming a shot in the air instead of providing schools with the right resources to support the students who need support.

In the proposal, it is stated that the expectations document shall contain a reminder of the guardian's responsibility. Even here, NPF students and their guardians risk being caught in the crossfire. It is not a lack of upbringing that causes some students to misbehave, to use a Mohamssonsk expression. No expectations document can either compensate for the difference in living conditions between the one who lives in Danderyd and the one who lives in Njurunda outside Sundsvall.

Madam Speaker! We know that there are occasions when students pose a risk or danger to other students, and a temporary relocation of a student can then be justified. However, the fact that the government is now investing heavily in emergency schools while the regular school is hit by cuts does not feel entirely proportionate. The needs also do not seem to be as great as the government wants to give the impression of, as a large part of the state grants for emergency schools are not used.

That the government is now opening up for emergency schools to be operated on a contract basis moves the responsibility for the students further away from the regular school and opens even more for the private limited company schools to receive these students. Taking care of students who have truly fallen behind is a new cash cow to profit from. What is intended to be a temporary solution for students who, for a shorter period, are not judged capable of attending their regular school because they pose a risk to others, risks leading to increased profits for the private limited companies.

The most important measure we can take so that students do not risk ending up so poorly that emergency schools are needed is to invest properly in the regular school. We need an expanded student health service, cooperation between social services and school, and support for students who are in need of it. Emergency schools can never become something we should get used to.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I would like to return to the fact that what is truly needed to increase safety and studies in Swedish schools is an investment in smaller classes and more staff.

I vote in favor of reservation 1.

In this speech, Camilla Hansén (MP) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Madam Speaker! Nearly half of the students in grade 9 state, in response to a question from the Swedish Crime Prevention Council, that they have been subjected to crime during the past year. It concerns assault, theft, threats, robbery, and sexual offenses.

Among the students, it is common that the fear of being subjected to crime also affects life in general. It can affect which route one chooses, whether one dares to go out in the evening – perhaps in one's own residential area – and which people one chooses to meet. It can even cause one to stay away from school for an entire day because of being worried about being subjected to crime. More than six out of ten girls have changed their behavior because they have been worried about being subjected to crime.

This also applies to the teachers. Nearly half of the teachers report to the School Inspectorate that a large proportion of the lesson time is spent maintaining order in the classroom. Half of the students say that they cannot concentrate on the lessons to a sufficient extent. According to a survey from Sveriges Lärare, every third teacher has been subjected to threats and violence.

Behind every figure are children, parents, and teachers living with anxiety and a knot in their stomachs because of the insecurity and the turmoil we see in parts of the Swedish school system. Teachers need to consider whether they dare to intervene against a violent student; they are worried about being reported. They have to devote time to conflict management and documentation instead of having the opportunity to plan their teaching.

Sweden stands out internationally, and not in any flattering way here either. According to the OECD, Sweden has the worst classroom discipline in all of Europe.

Now we are doing something about this. For almost exactly four years ago, I stood in this speaker's chair and debated the previous left-wing government's deficient measures for increased safety and study environment in the Swedish school. I stated then that the time for suspension and relocation was too short, that we needed to create more opportunities for emergency schools and, not least, that the principal's responsibility for the work with safety and study environment needed to be clarified. We are implementing all of this now. It matters who is in power.

The principal now receives an explicit responsibility to actively work with safety and study environment. We ensure that all schools become mobile-free during the entire school day. Even though many schools are already mobile-free today, as has been noted in this debate, and have different types of mobile bans, which are upheld to varying degrees, nearly 30 percent of students for OECD report that they are distracted by other students who use digital tools, for example mobile phones, during most lessons or every lesson. This is happening today, and it is a real problem that we are now addressing.

The bill we are debating today is also about clarifying what the school can expect from the students, from the guardians, and from the parents at home. We want to strengthen parental responsibility. We also want to clarify what happens if one breaks the school's rules. Rules must be linked to consequences.

We ensure that disruptive students can more easily be removed from the classroom and that they can be relocated for a longer period of time. It is fundamentally about ensuring that a few disruptive students cannot hold the rest of the class hostage. It is about justice for all students who behave in school. Their right to a good education and instruction must not be taken away from them by a few students who disrupt the teaching. The just thing is that those who behave have a right to a study environment. The disruptive students must be moved out of the classroom. This should be obvious, but it is not today.

It is not reasonable that murderers and rapists can attend school while awaiting their sentence, which has actually occurred. Therefore, we are now ensuring that these students can be denied access to school. The order that has applied until now, with a school obligation that carries great weight, has meant that principals have not had the possibility to reject students from school despite other students' knowledge that they are part of gangs and commit the most bestial crimes in their free time.

We are now changing this by introducing such a possibility in the legislation. Of course, they shall still receive their schooling; we know that completed schooling is an important protective factor against future crime. However, other students and the staff in the school must be able to feel safe. They should not have to be afraid that a murderer is sitting in the seat next to them. It is out of consideration for all other students that we are now making this possible.

Regardless of where in the country you live, you have a right to safety and peace of mind. That is why we are now making it possible for smaller municipalities to cooperate and start joint emergency schools. Vänsterpartiet and Socialdemokraterna, however, oppose this. They apparently want safety and peace of mind to only exist in large cities – not in smaller municipalities. This constitutes a clear difference between the parties.

All the measures we are now implementing send a clear signal to all of Sweden's hard-working students and teachers: We stand on your side. Your education must not be ruined by a few rowdy students. You shall no longer be forced to be doormats in a rowdy classroom for those who misbehave. You teachers shall no longer hesitate to report or intervene when you are subjected to threats and violence in school.

We are now settling this, and with today's proposition, we are introducing several long-awaited reforms and tools. They will now be available to teachers and principals so that you can do your important work to maintain safety and study environments in Swedish classrooms.

Madam Speaker! With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Malmqvist for a very, very good speech.

I appreciate this, that it should be the same throughout the entire country. It is something the Center Party truly stands up for, and one of the things we have raised several times but that the government has said no to is precisely that it should be the same throughout the entire country when it comes to being able to move students from an individual school in a small municipality. Today, one is not allowed to move students outside of one's own unit to another head of school, so what is a small municipality that perhaps only has a single junior high school supposed to do? It cannot move students.

We have pointed this out previously and before this proposition, but it is still like this. That is, there is a difference between larger and smaller municipalities and principals. Why did it become like this?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Paarup-Petersen for the question.

The safety work in schools must be done collectively, long-term, and with diligence. As I mentioned, I requested in this chamber exactly four years ago many of the reforms that we are finally getting in place now.

Part of this is about creating conditions and tools for all students, schools, and municipalities to be able to act, just as Paarup-Petersen pointed out. It is also the background to why we enable principals to make both new and repeated decisions regarding longer suspension to emergency school. It is also about the fact that an individual employer does not have to manage this on their own. In urban areas but especially in rural areas, one needs to be able to cooperate if one has one or two violent and disruptive students who do not function in a normal classroom so that they can be moved to another school environment where they can receive support and then hopefully be able to return to regular instruction.

We now make this possible with this bill.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for an excellent answer to another question.

I asked about the possibility of relocating students to another school. I know that emergency schools have been introduced and that they can be outsourced, which we also support. But emergency schools are only one type of solution. Relocation is another, and so far it is not possible for a primary owner to move a student to a school run by another primary owner.

A small municipality with only one single junior high school, and there are many of those, cannot move a student to another school. An individual head of school who only has a single school can neither do that. This we have, as we said, pointed out earlier and also in connection with this bill. But still, it is not included.

Member of the Board Malmqvist was clear that there should be equal conditions and the same opportunities to manage students in cities and in rural areas. But now that is not happening. Therefore, I ask the question again and hope to receive an answer: Why is it not included? Would the Moderates in the future be open to also doing this so that principals and students in rural areas can get the same security as those in the cities?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Madam Speaker! We have major problems with safety and study environment in the Swedish school. Unfortunately, it is not a new problem; we have seen this for years. I am pleased that the government is now addressing many of the problems that we have seen for far too long in the Swedish school. This was one of the reasons why the government appointed an investigation with the very experienced school leader Happy Hilmarsdottir Arenwall. She received a broad mandate from the government to look at all safety problems – many of them we have discussed here today – and came up with a massive list of proposals. It is also her proposals that form the basis for most of the reforms the Riksdag is now to decide on.

I am pleased that we have gathered a majority in the chamber to be able to implement these changes – changes that the Moderaterna demanded already during the previous parliamentary term and nagged the left-led government to implement. But the government at that time failed in its leadership here.

The reform work does not stop here, because the Swedish school system has ongoing problems. Now we are taking many important steps in the right direction, but the Moderaterna have additional proposals for which we seek the voters' mandate to implement during the upcoming parliamentary term.

My answer to Member of Parliament Paarup-Petersen is clear: My best tip is to vote for the Moderaterna in the election in September because we are obviously delivering reforms in area after area when it comes to the Swedish school, and also when it comes to the work for increased safety and study environment. We will not be satisfied until Sweden's teachers and principals have sufficient tools to be able to perform their important work in Swedish schools and classrooms.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! Safety and focus are a prerequisite for students' learning, and several speakers have expressed this in many good ways. Without safety in the classroom, students cannot achieve their full potential. One must feel safe in the classroom that one is actually, according to Swedish law, forced to be in. Without safety, teachers also cannot do their jobs, but that foundation is still failing in many Swedish schools. Threats, disturbances, and violence still occur, and we must take that most seriously. Therefore, the government's proposal is fundamentally good.

But for this to be truly accurate and work in the whole country, from rural areas to cities, certain things need to be complemented and become a bit sharper. I will highlight three concrete things and then come to what is absolutely most important.

Firstly, we are in complete agreement that schools should be mobile-free, but we believe that the decision should lie with the principals. If one, as a principal, cannot get a mobile-free school through, one perhaps should not be a principal. Power should therefore be able to be delegated further down, not least when it comes to how this is to be implemented. We in Centerpartiet probably trust the principals and the teachers more than the government does.

Secondly, we note that the bill misses the mark when it comes to the relocation of disruptive and violent students. Parts of the bill are good. But it is still the case that for a small rural municipality with only a single junior high school, today's rules and even the government's proposal are completely ineffective, because there, one still has no possibility of relocating a student. It exists only on paper, in the legislation, but there is no real possibility because one is not allowed to relocate a student to a school with a different head of authority.

We have repeatedly pointed out that there are principals for whom these proposals will not help. Why is it that the government's legislation repeatedly favors the cities but does not take the countryside into account? This creates an inequality in Skolsverige that we cannot accept. The safety of students and teachers should not depend on the size of the municipality or whether the school is independent or municipal.

A simple and obvious solution for us is to make it possible to relocate students even to a school with a different primary owner in, for example, a neighboring municipality or from a municipal to an independent school or vice versa. Anything else is to leave students and teachers in the countryside in the lurch.

Thirdly, we have the documentation. The government wants to abolish the requirements to document when a student is shown out of the classroom. They say it reduces the teachers' administration. It is fundamentally good, but some documentation is important to have. If one does not document just that type of intervention against students, one might miss the large part: when it has occurred many times. There, we think it is reasonable that one can see the patterns.

When we talk about crime, violence and insecurity, we say time and again that patterns are important, but in just this area, the government does not see that it is important to keep track of the patterns, not least for students with NPF, who are overrepresented in the statistics. We must be able to intervene with effective methods in time. This is perhaps what we miss if we do not have a grip on the whole.

That is why Skolverket, Skolinspektionen, Funktionsrätt Sverige and many others warn against precisely this. They are no easy referral bodies, but they are quite heavy. Skolverket and Skolinspektionen are still the primary authorities in this area, and they say that this is a problem. Here the government should have listened, not just to Centerpartiet but to these heavy referral bodies.

But let me come to what is perhaps the most important. Fundamentally, it is about the students and the teachers if one wants the school to be safe. But this government is removing student influence, despite research having repeatedly shown that it is important for a well-functioning school and for achieving that connection between students and teachers that makes the teaching and results better and the safety and calm in the classroom greater. I think it is a pity that one repeatedly attacks student influence, completely without reason.

Earlier, the Moderate Party member Happy, who has conducted a fine investigation, mentioned it. What does it say about student influence? What does Happy say about it? Well, she says that it must remain, but that is exactly what the government chooses not to listen to. I find that sad, because in the end, it is the students who are the goal of the school. That the government does not listen to the people who are affected by the government's decisions, we do not only see here, but we see it time and again. It does not listen to those who are affected. It is a pity.

Then we have the teachers, Mr. Speaker. In the end, it is by-products we are talking about here, but it is the teachers who create the everyday life in the classroom. What the government is doing is ensuring that there are fewer qualified teachers in Swedish schools and less money to pay the teachers in Swedish schools.

One can have an expectation document, a piece of paper that one sends around to all students and that they can take home to their parents, but if one does not have teachers with education inside the classrooms, the noise increases. All surveys show that qualified teachers have less noise in the classroom than unqualified ones, but we will get more unqualified teachers with the government's policy.

Fewer qualified teachers are being educated. One is not willing to invest in them, as the Centerpartiet does, so that they can go where they are truly needed. Then one does not get the effects that we agree should be achieved. I really think we are in agreement. I can agree that there has been a bit too little focus on study rooms earlier, but I still think we are in agreement that it is absolutely crucial. That is my opinion. All parties realize it today. It is the teachers who are the foundation, but that is where the government is not investing.

When a third of the teachers face a threat, it is clear that it is the teachers we must invest in so that they can stay. We must give them security but also colleagues. Again: Qualified teachers provide more security and study than unqualified ones – that is what the surveys show. Why then not invest in the teachers? I do not understand that. A document does not help there; we must be clear about that nonetheless.

In this matter, I move for approval of reservation 9 under point 7.

When we now pass these parts, which are fundamentally excellent even if they slightly lack focus on the whole country, I hope that we can take action to ensure that there are teachers in all classrooms. In the end, that is what is required if we want a safe and calm school.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Niels Paarup-Petersen, for the contribution!

It pleases me that we now have a consensus in this chamber regarding the work for increased safety and study in Swedish classrooms. But allow me perhaps not to hold my breath just yet, for it will be a bit of a test to see what is delivered in practice.

What the government promised before the election, we are delivering during this mandate period after the election, and we are now seeking the voters' trust to do the same after the election in September.

I have a question for Member Paarup-Petersen. A majority of Sweden's principals are requesting a national mobile phone ban, as they see that mobile phones distract during lessons, interfere with students' ability to concentrate, and create challenges since different schools have different rules regarding it, not least when students move between different stages or change schools.

I therefore reacted a little to Niels Paarup-Petersen's contribution from the rostrum. The member stated that a principal who cannot personally enforce and maintain a mobile phone ban should no longer be a principal. At the same time, a majority of Sweden's principals are requesting support in the form of a national mobile phone ban. Does it mean that the Center Party thinks that a majority of Sweden's principals should leave their jobs?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! No, on the contrary, we would gladly have more principals. But I absolutely stand behind that the person who is a principal must have the ability to push through decisions in their own school. This applies, for example, to simpler rules of order such as a mobile phone ban. That one, for example, wants a national ban is however not the same thing as that one does not have the ability to push through something else. We must, nevertheless, logically agree on this. These are two very different things.

I can understand that it is nice to have a national ban that makes it simple. That is the case with many things. We are not strongly opposed to this, which perhaps has been noted. We just think that schools are fundamentally different. Therefore – because the differences are so great – we generally believe, just like the Moderaterna, that they should be municipal. We want there to be different actors in the school, because it looks different and there are different conditions in different parts of Sweden. Therefore, we want to give that type of power to the principals, fundamentally.

Well, yes, it is clear that there should not be mobile phones in the classrooms. When it comes to the balancing of exactly how the whole thing should be done based on the own circumstances, we believe a bit more in the principal's ability than the government does. That is correct.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that we may differ slightly on this. The bill is about strengthening the powers of teachers and principals. It is not, as we have heard earlier in the debate, about teachers and principals having to act in a certain way, but rather that they are given tools to be able to act.

Niels Paarup-Petersen remarked a bit that one is making it a little easy for oneself, but I mean that it is precisely that which is our mission. We shall facilitate for school leaders. We shall facilitate for teachers to maintain order in the classrooms in the school so that they can focus on their important mission, namely to conduct teaching. If this is something that Niels Paarup-Petersen looks down on, I can state once again that we see a bit differently on this issue.

I also want to take the opportunity to respond to the incorrect claim regarding student influence. It is true that we are removing what has today in many places been perceived as a veto in the Education Act, namely that students have had a final say over the rules of conduct. We do not think that is reasonable. We believe that it is adults who should decide in the Swedish school. And we believe it is reasonable that in the legislation we decide on in this chamber, we also clarify that it is adults who decide in the Swedish school.

Then it does not mean that there is a ban on talking to the students. On the contrary, we see that skilled leaders obviously talk to their fellow teachers and with their students when changes are implemented in the school's operations. That is also how one most often achieves the best results.

What we decide on is what binding legislation must apply to everyone. I am completely convinced that the skilled school leaders we have all around Sweden will also continue to want to talk with their students, in the same way as they will also continue to have support in how to implement a mobile phone ban and maintain it in everyday life.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I did not say that one should make it easy for oneself; I said that one can certainly think it is easier – I hope and understood, in any case, that was what I said.

In some ways, it does become simpler. But the philosophical, political, and ideological core of this is: Do I believe that it will certainly become easier for the individual principal that from an office in Stockholm, it is defined exactly how one should solve a problem? Answer: No! I do not necessarily believe that it will be so.

That is why we, sometimes as the only party in this chamber, are decentralists. We believe that people out there have a better grasp of how they should solve their problems. I understand that for many, it is a nice thing when someone comes and says: "Now you are going to do it this way." I can also think that sometimes, even when my wife says it and sometimes when the party says it. It is a bit different. But sometimes it becomes completely wrong. Sometimes it just doesn't work, because they do not know exactly what the situation is at that specific time and place, which is what one must take into account. Now a principal can say: "Then we do it this way." But that cannot be done if it has to fit into such a square.

I believe that it must fundamentally be based on our basic view of human capability and our belief on how power should be distributed. Should it be close to the people or far away from them? This is an example of believing that power should be far away from them instead of close to them. That is the point.

We agree that mobile phones should not be in the classroom. But here it is said that there should be mobile phone lockers. Why should there be legislation regarding mobile phone lockers? I wonder if that is the level it should be at. The question is how much we should micro-manage Swedish schools, even if we agree on the goals.

Centerpartiet is perhaps the party that to the greatest extent believes that the principals are people with great abilities and great capacity to decide over their own everyday lives and to understand their own school.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We have a crisis of values in Swedish schools. The authority of adults has been eroded, boundaries have been blurred, and students respect each other to too small an extent.

For every student who disrupts, there is another who is deprived of peace of work. For every violation from one student, there is another student who finds it increasingly difficult to go to school the next day. And for every rule violation that is not followed up, a sense of hopelessness is built up among both students and staff. The students who want to learn and who try to do the right thing also become silent losers in that situation.

We must never accept that there is a single school in Sweden where children are held back because adults do not have the tools, the time, or the courage to act.

In order for the school to be able to fulfill its mission, to educate and nurture, structure, clarity and common norms are required. We must therefore create a school where knowledge is once again allowed to be at the center and where every child is treated with respect. It is in that light that the government's proposal should be understood. Ultimately, it is about giving the school better tools to create the environment that all students have a right to.

An important step is to strengthen precisely the disciplinary tools. Ultimately, it is about protecting students' right to education and safety. When a student seriously disrupts the teaching or threatens or violates others, the staff must be able to act quickly and clearly. The possibility to, in certain situations, show a student out without a prior warning or to temporarily relocate a student for a longer period gives the school time to handle the situation and find the right support. In practice, it can be absolutely decisive for an entire class to be able to have peace to work.

At the same time, I want to emphasize that these measures must never be a substitute for other support. A student who ends up in conflict or repeatedly breaks rules needs both help and consequences. But without clear tools, the school risks being left helpless and unable to provide either help or consequences. In that case, both that student and all other students are affected.

Mr. Speaker! The proposal for mobile-free schools must be understood in a broader perspective. Children growing up today are being robbed of their childhood. The tech giants have been allowed to wreak havoc on children's attention, time, and lives for far too long. We see the effects in increased sedentary behavior, impaired sleep, poorer concentration, more loneliness, and increasing mental ill-health. Therefore, it is important that the school becomes a counterweight to just this. In school, it should be teachers, not screens, who capture the students' attention.

Safety in school is built together with the home and the parents. The school cannot alone bear the responsibility for the child's development. A common direction from both school and parents is needed. This is the background for the proposal on expectation documents – a kind of contract between student, parent, and school – where it clearly states what is expected in terms of behavior, respect, and study habits, but also what the parents are expected to contribute. The parents must know and sign off on the fact that their role does not end at the school gate. Schooling is a collaboration between the school and the parents.

Mr. Speaker! We must also be clear that the school shall have zero tolerance for bullying and harassment. Every case must be taken seriously, so that every child shall feel that the adult world stands on their side. Behind every figure in the statistics, there is, after all, a child. Behind every figure in Friends' statistics on bullying, which unfortunately is increasing, there is someone who is not getting the chance. There is a boy or a girl with a backpack, a gym bag, and dreams. Perhaps the dreams are about becoming a veterinarian, a football professional, or a history teacher.

Our duty as the adult world is to never turn away our gaze, but to see the students and equip them for life.

The school's values are based on a deep ethical tradition with roots in Judeo-Christian ethics and Western humanism. They highlight the equal value of all human beings, care for the weak, and responsibility for the common good. The ethical principles must be put into practical action, every day and in every classroom. And it needs to lead to greater consequences when the school's values are not respected and students instead choose to treat others poorly or break the school's rules of order.

Without order, compliance with rules, and respect for others, a situation is quickly created where boundaries are blurred and where the sense of responsibility and school community is weakened. In that situation, it is the most vulnerable children who get caught in the crossfire.

It is instead in a school with fixed and clear frameworks where warmth, care, and learning are allowed to take place. We therefore need to do more to create order and safety in schools, so that more children get the chance to succeed in school, gain power over their lives, and can realize their dreams. In this bill, important steps in that development are proposed.

With that, I move for approval of the proposal in the report.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! Member Bengtsson and I seem to share a great deal of opinions regarding the fact that school should be a safe environment where all students are doing well.

However, I am thinking of students who do not always have the ability to sit still and of the student who perhaps causes trouble and creates problems in the classroom. That student also deserves to be treated with respect. That student may experience violence at home. That student may have undiagnosed ADHD, which causes trouble. That student may be bullied and therefore becomes aggressive towards other students.

It is of course not excuses for not behaving well in the classroom. And it can absolutely be justified that one is expelled from the classroom. But I question weakening that student's right to receive a proper assessment of whether it was the correct measure or not by removing the documentation requirement that exists today. I would like to ask Member Bengtsson about that. Why should one not document expulsion from the classroom?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member of Parliament Isabell Mixter, for the question! I believe that we share the basic intention and the commitment for students who risk falling behind in one way or another.

I also believe that the student group the member describes is helped by early interventions and knowledge screenings. They are helped by smaller teaching groups and more special education teachers. Much of the policy that the Christian Democrats, the government, and I want to see also helps that student group. I also mean that even a student who is shown out of the classroom needs to be caught, get the chance to change their behavior, and receive help and support where the student is academically.

Why should there not be documentation requirements regarding this? Simply to reduce the administration for teachers. As always in these issues, it is a conflict of objectives between increased administration and bureaucracy for the teachers and what might possibly be good for the student. The benefit of the documentation requirement simply does not weigh as heavily as the benefit of removing the requirement. I concede that it is a conflict of objectives, but I think the government has landed wisely.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! It sounds good that it is intended that there should be more special education teachers, smaller teaching groups and so on. But it does not really hold up if, at the same time, massive cuts in welfare are carried out. The result in the country's schools is the opposite, that is to say, teachers are laid off, special education teachers and student assistants disappear and the group sizes in the schools increase. If anything, the administrative burden for the individual teacher increases.

What I see is therefore that the government is increasing the burden for every individual teacher in Sweden because of the cuts and choices the government makes, that is to say, they lower the tax for the very richest and let the school students pay the price.

I also want to ask another question to Member Bengtsson regarding what he spoke about, that is, the ethical foundation and that all students are equally worthy.

We do not only have expulsion from the classroom for shorter periods, but we actually have students who are expelled permanently from the classroom and from Sweden. Your government has not solved this yet, despite having promised these students and their classmates that it would be solved. Are all students equally worthy in Bengtsson's eyes? I would very much like to have an answer to that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The answer to the member's last question is yes. To even insinuate anything else from the Speaker's chair, I think, is a bit disrespectful.

When it comes to that specific question and the migration legislation, my position is that Sweden needs to have an orderly, regulated migration policy and that the changes the government has made regarding the migration legislation, and also the deportations that follow from it, have been necessary. Then, one needs to find solutions for the individual cases that have fallen through the cracks, but on the large scale, I argue that it has been necessary and good things for Sweden as a country.

The government has allocated large resources to the school during this parliamentary term, and we want them to be used for smaller teaching groups and more special education teachers. Then, ultimately, it is the school principals and the municipalities who decide how large additions or cuts they want to make. But the government's investments have gone to the school.

When safety and study environment increase and classrooms and corridors become safer, the teachers, who are trained specifically to teach, will get more time to teach and see each student. When one spends less time resolving fights and conflicts and maintaining order and instead has safer classrooms, all students will be helped by it, and also those students who need extra support will receive it when there is more safety and study environment.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Swedish school is for all children. This means that children's and students' right to education comes first, and they should be able to feel safe in school. To enable a safe working environment for both teachers and students, measures are needed that facilitate things for the school's staff. That is welcome.

After this debate, it seems that we agree that safety and a calm learning environment are a prerequisite for a good school. We are, however, not in agreement on how, that is to say, whether it is a copied piece of paper handed out at the first meeting when the school starts that establishes a culture characterized by safety and a calm learning environment, or whether what makes the difference is staff who work with safety and a calm learning environment, have time for the students, and listen to them.

Unfortunately, some of the proposals that the government presents are deficient and risk worsening students' legal certainty and, in some cases, undermining the right to support. The government seems to believe that detailed political steering from the Riksdag and government and reduced student influence is what builds a safe culture for learning and study at every school. It is a pity that the government does not want to build its policy on knowledge.

Peace and quiet for learning is, of course, a foundation. The school's working environment is fundamental to both the health of employees and students and the possibility to perform their work and acquire the knowledge they are expected to acquire. That teachers should be able to handle serious disruptions of order is, of course, justified, and in some situations, decisions on expulsion from the classroom or staying behind can be a measure.

Miljöpartiet agrees, however, with the criticism from several of the referral bodies that question the proposal that the documentation requirement should be removed. Among others, Sveriges Elevkårer writes that a decision to be expelled from the classroom and deprived of their right to education, or to be given detention and forced to stay in school after school hours, are relatively large interventions that should be documented. Skolverket also emphasizes that a decision constituting a disciplinary measure involves the exercise of public authority against an individual.

This is because such decisions need to be documented. The documentation provides a comprehensive picture of the student's needs and contributes to the school's ability to coordinate interventions. It is also important from a legal certainty perspective for the student's sake and in order to be able to clarify the teacher's and the school's argumentation for the measure.

The Institute for Human Rights rejects the proposals in that part and argues that the investigation underlying the proposals is deficient in these aspects. I want to build a Swedish school on knowledge, not on weak investigations.

What is this with the expectation documents? The government seems to believe that a piece of paper with rules is what is missing for peace and quiet in Swedish schools. I do not believe that. I am very skeptical that the government's proposal to clarify the school's expectations of students and guardians through an expectation document is the way to go. It is not on photocopied papers that one builds a school culture; it is about building relationships between people. This applies when building relationships with families, between students and teachers and school management, and for all that, with students.

The purpose of the document is worthwhile: to clarify the responsibility of the school and the guardians. It is, of course, something that is discussed in the school, but this risks becoming a paper product that leads to nothing more than extra administrative work.

We share the objections from the universities in Uppsala and Linköping, which highlight that this could be perceived more as symbolic politics than as actual support. The guardians who lack parenting responsibility and are therefore affected are not affected because they have not received a piece of paper from the school, but because they live under conditions and in life situations that make it difficult for them to maintain their parenthood. Parents in that situation need support in their parenthood, not a piece of paper in their hands.

We have also touched upon mobile phones. I just want to clarify that Miljöpartiet does not think that one should have private mobile phones in school. One should devote oneself to schoolwork. It is no mystery.

However, it is strange that the government is coming up with very detailed legislation regarding what should work and what should not in Swedish schools. We know that most schools have a ban on mobile phones during the day. That is manageable. We also know, as I mentioned in a previous exchange, that even more important than a ban is that there is an activity at the school that stimulates movement and socializing during breaks, for example.

Mr. Speaker! We have a debate here about an important foundation for the quality of Swedish schools. But the most important thing for safety and study is that teachers and all other adults in the school have the opportunity to do their jobs.

Late this afternoon, I heard about a teacher who described the deterioration of their work situation and the studies for the students in the classroom during this year. They have previously been a teaching team of four teachers for three classes. They have had plenty of time to prepare and follow up on their lessons. There has been peace and quiet during the lessons and good quality in the teaching. But savings meant that one person had to be removed. The teacher describes how the time for preparation and follow-up during this year has almost disappeared because so much time is spent doing other things.

This was an anecdotal story, but it shows how important it is to have sufficient staffing in practice. What provides security and focus are skilled teachers who have time for their students. It is not photocopied papers and punishments. It is not cutting down on students' influence over their education. We know that student influence strengthens the school culture. It is completely incomprehensible that a responsible government chooses to remove student influence when it comes to rules of order.

Mr. Speaker! I want to see a school with really good conditions for students and teachers. In that school, skilled teachers have time for their students and the students have influence over their education. Then the students receive the support they need in a timely manner. A good school is built on knowledge, not on finger-wagging. That is why Miljöpartiet has invested more money in the school every year throughout this entire mandate period. With that, I move for approval of reservation 2, which concerns legal certainty for students during deportation and remaining in the country.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! There was much in Member Hansén's contribution that I can state we do not agree on. Camilla Hansén states that it is not possible to build reforms on "weak" investigations and that papers with rules would not facilitate the safety work in Swedish schools, despite the fact that we know that what we propose works in Sweden and elsewhere in the world.

Miljöpartiet apologizes to parents who live under conditions that make it difficult for them to fulfill their parental responsibilities and notes that we cannot expect them to be involved in their children's education and success in school.

The Chairman also notes, regarding the mobile phone ban and mobile phones, that it is already manageable today and that there is therefore no need for such a reform.

In area after area, I can state that we are very far apart. Member Hansén is also far from what Sweden's school leaders and teachers are requesting.

With this bill, we are providing more tools to Sweden's teachers and school leaders. We are giving them extended mandates and powers to suspend and temporarily relocate students – also over longer periods and outside their own school unit. We are implementing what a majority of Sweden's school leaders are requesting, namely a national regulation regarding mobile-free schools so that the same rules shall apply in all schools in Sweden.

My question to Member Hansén is why Miljöpartiet opposes this when a majority of Sweden's school leaders and teachers are requesting this type of tool in their work.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Josefin Malmqvist, for the question! I understand if the member may not have time to read all the motions and reports that are coming now. We do not oppose the majority of the measures that are proposed. However, we have views on the implementation and oppose certain things for which there is no particularly good support. The Moderaterna should also have opposed them and not tabled them in the Riksdag.

I feel quite satisfied that we stand some distance apart on some of these issues. We belong to different parties, and we have different views on how to build a school policy based on knowledge. I do not believe that school culture is built on a paper that describes for us how the rules of order should be handled.

I believe that school culture regarding rules and how one should behave towards each other is built on dialogue with students, teachers, and school management. It is built on respect for one another, not on a stronger party intimidating a weaker party and telling them to sit down. It is built on relationships. It is also what Andreas Schleicher highlights as a strength in Swedish schools, namely a relational perspective.

I think the member's view on parents whose circumstances mean they cannot carry out their parenthood is indecent and degrading. I think it is embarrassing that the member tries to make it sound as if I do not want to provide these parents with the necessary conditions. I want to provide them with the conditions. I want them to have a secure income, a secure home, and support in their parenthood. They are not helped by a note from the school. They are helped by a society that gives them support in their parenthood.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! The member and I have fundamentally different views on the role of parents. We Moderates want to strengthen parents' responsibility to maintain and contribute to their own children's education. We have high expectations for all students.

We want all students in the Swedish school to have the opportunity to succeed. That is why we think it is incredibly important to also include the parents, the guardians, in the children's schooling. Member Hansén is rambling around and saying that a piece of paper cannot build a school culture. Of course not! No one has claimed that.

We are now implementing a full palette of measures that have been developed by a very experienced school leader. Happy Hilmarsdottir Arenvall has experience, as a principal, school leader, and school head in both Stockholm and Järfälla, of precisely turning around the development in unruly schools and seeing how important the relationship with parents is. Therefore, her investigation proposes an expectations document, which strengthens the school's work in the relationship with the guardians.

It is therefore experienced school principals who have developed the proposals that we are now putting on the table and that Miljöpartiet opposes. To make it sound as if we ourselves have come up with the proposals is, to say the least, quite cheeky. But the fundamental difference between our parties could not be clearer than in this debate.

The Moderates see that we need to provide national tools and resources to teachers and principals, who perform important safety-creating work in the schools. We are now giving them the tools they themselves have requested.

I can only regret that, from the outside, there still seem to be large differences between our parties when it comes to the ambition to create safety and order in the Swedish school.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Josefin Malmqvist, I think it is appropriate that one sticks to the truth. The member knows very well that Miljöpartiet stands behind a majority of the proposals in this bill. Do not try to pretend otherwise!

An investigation has been conducted, with narrow directives, by a person who is very experienced and competent but who perhaps cannot handle the legal aspects regarding rights. The Institute for Human Rights advises against removing the documentation when it comes to remaining in the country and deportation because the investigation in that part is deficient. The Moderates must take responsibility for presenting an investigation despite having received an answer from the institute that is supposed to safeguard human rights in Sweden.

Now it has been investigated, and we have some objections to the bill. We also give teachers and principals more tools, but we do not applaud micro-management. In a school where teachers have time for their students, where principals have time to perform their work, that is where the studies will become better and that is where the safety will become better.

What we have seen this mandate period is a government that washes its hands when it comes to the municipalities' economic situation, especially at the beginning of the mandate period. The opposition has, to varying degrees, allocated more money to this than the government, and the government representatives have washed their hands. When the pandemic and war cause costs to spiral and the municipalities say how much money they need to maintain the level of welfare, then the government says no.

Real investments in schools are needed. Money needs to be put on the table for teachers and students. It will be needed moving forward.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 3 June.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)